Skip to main content

Discontinuous improvement

One of the mantra’s I always preached for my teams was the concept of 'Continuous Improvement'. The idea is simple and appealing: we constantly seek incremental enhancements to our processes, products, and services. This approach, popularized by Japanese manufacturing methodologies like Kaizen, promises steady progress through small, ongoing adjustments rather than dramatic overhauls.

However while reading the ‘Leadership is language’ by L. David Marquet, I started to wonder; what if this widely accepted wisdom is fundamentally flawed? What if true improvement doesn't actually happen continuously at all?

The stairway, not the ramp

In his book, David explains that improvement doesn't occur as a smooth, uninterrupted climb upward. Rather, it happens in distinct, intentional batches - like climbing stairs instead of walking up a ramp. This is what he calls "discontinuous improvement," and understanding this concept can transform how your team operates.

Real progress occurs when we separate our work into two distinct modes:

  • Redwork: The periods of action and execution where we implement our plans, interact with the world and observe the results
  • Bluework: The dedicated intervals for reflection, analysis, and planning improvements

By acknowledging this natural rhythm, we create space for both focused execution and meaningful improvement.

The problem with the "Good Idea Fairy"

David talks about how as managers we risk to become “good idea fairies’' by focusing too much on continuous improvement. This causes us to offer suggestions for improvement unexpectedly without much regard for how that improvement should be made to the ongoing process. For a team this is disturbing and can be perceived as indecision and lack of focus.

It was a trap I have fallen in myself many times. As someone who likes to read a lot and having ‘Wonder’ as one of my Working geniuses, I always have new ideas that I want to apply. In all my excitement I feel the urge to immediately share these ideas with my team. But where I wanted to be helpful it, I understand now that I was interrupting the team and causing confusion.

Sorry team!

Discontinuous improvement

What I should have done was focus on discontinuous improvement by holding all my ideas in a backlog until the next period of bluework, then look at these ideas with the team, and let them decide which ones to move forward with.

The solution isn't to abandon improvement - it's to schedule it properly. Here's how to implement discontinuous improvement effectively:

  1. Control the clock: Clearly define when the current execution phase (redwork) will end
  2. Schedule the improvement session: Put the next reflection and planning session (bluework) on the calendar before you start executing
  3. Create a backlog: Capture new ideas as they come, but save them for the scheduled improvement session
  4. Complete the cycle: When the scheduled time arrives, celebrate progress, review what you've learned, and decide which improvements to implement next

This approach provides the psychological safety needed for teams to fully commit to execution, knowing that their observations and ideas will be heard at the appropriate time.

If this sounds really similar to a sprint retrospective in Scrum, that is indeed an implementation of this approach.

So, the next time you feel tempted to interrupt your team with a brilliant new idea mid-execution, remember: improvement happens best when it's scheduled, not when it's continuous. Hold that thought, add it to the backlog, and bring it up at your next planned improvement session.

More information

Appreciate, don’t evaluate

Greatness by David Marquet

Leadership Is Language Book – David Marquet, Author, Keynote Speaker, Creator of Intent-Based Leadership, Intent-Based Leadership International

6 Types Of Working Genius: Discover Your Gifts & Transform Your Work

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...